You seem to have missed the point. the person who got the copyright isn't the person who wrote happy birthday, happy birthday which was performed for years on radio and in public without any copyright notice before then just happened to be similar to a song written by a dead woman who's family then used the courts to make their own.
so even if you write your own song and don't bother to copyright it then some fucker with more money can you can just come along, take the copyright then sue you if you want to use it.
in 1893 a school teacher made up a ditty (and most likely copied the tune and lyrical idea from other songs from that time period.)
Good morning to you, Good morning to you, Good morning, dear children, Good morning to all.
She died in 1916. twenty years after "Good morning to you" was first sung a song with the same melody became popular.
Happy Birthday To You Happy Birthday To You Happy Birthday Dear _____ Happy Birthday To You
The sister of the deceased sued and took the copyright because the songs were obviously so similar.
My parents sang that song at my first birthday party (Illegaly I may add as it was probably in a public place like a resteraunt) and the copyright will not expire until after I am dead.
The "artist" never saw a dime. The "artist" only created something vaguely similar. A pack of lazy useless family members and lawyers have been living off the income for the last hundred years contributing nothing to society while doing so and being nothing but a pain.
That is the copyright system as it stands. Work for an hour and you can gain the right to charge other people for making certain sounds in public or making certain marks on paper for the rest of your life, then your kids inherite that right and then sell it to some random company and the best thing is that it will never expire since the terms keep getting longer and longer and longer.
copyright is broken.
It should last no longer than is needed to get your book published and on the shelves or your song recorded and into peoples ipods.
sounds like something written by someone who spends more time reading the shite newspapers which so love to shout about the terrible youth of today with their sex,drugs etc. The fact that most people now days wouldn't even dream of getting married and having kids as young as their parents did doesn't get so much attention.
you jest but the day someone works out a method to do the operation easily and cheaply it will become real. Of course it wouldn't catch on too much because even if it's less destructive than heroin there's no money to be made once the operation has been done.
It could catch on for other purposed though. imagine an implant for people who want to get off really addictive drugs which only activates while their bloodstream is clean and they're in good physical shape (indicators of dehydration or starvation could cause it to switch off to make sure the person takes care of themselves)
", but tolerably... Everyone has to present an ID to board a flight or to enter a government building, for example"
Everyone?
If George Bush and his family(take your pick of anyone near the top of government) wanted to board a flight but forgot their IDs or their details matched those of people on the "no fly list" what are the chances that the plane would take off without them? Now try it for any random citizen.
If the answer is different for these 2 situations then there's something rotten.
but you're missing one important point. Say that someone comes up with a treatment for some serious problem with the atp cycle (for an extreme example). Sure it would mean that when civilisation falls a lot of people who need the drugs will die but there's also a chance that you can get a 2 stage mutation which otherwise would never have been possible. Think in terms of Change X: you die. Change Y: you die. Change X and Y: new extra effecient solution to a problem.You live.
It doesn't really matter if 99% of the population dies after civilisation crumbles due to genetic problems etc since 1% of 6 billion is still loads.
can you now? Sure you can look at the lowest level operations but emergent behaviour can be a problem. An artificial neural network can be used to solve certain problems without the programmer needing to understand the solution the machine develops.
Just because you understand boolean logic doesn't mean you can understand how a learning program plays a game like backgammon better than any human could. You might understand how the program is built but not the solution it creates.
Ok so the dissemination of knowledge on certain subjects is illegal unless it's covered under one of the little exceptions. That clears it up nicely, cheers.
wonder how it gets around the first. If the export of "weapons" was legal if printed in a book then I can only imagine how this would go in court.
It's manufacturing, importing or distributing a device that is intended for circumventing encryption. Probably wouldn't apply to a formula.
And if that formula is machine parseable since that's what code boils down to...
Depends on your motivations. This is different from your stated motivations. If you're clearly lying when you're saying it's for academic study only then it's still not legal.
Where did I say it was for academic study? Does it mention it in the DMCA? Is it one of those screwup pieces of legislation where it's legal if I print the source code for a copy protection cracker in a book (think PGP) and mail it to someone but illegal if I email it to them. Or would both be illegal?
Can anyone tell me: how strong does encryption have to be to make breaking it illegal?
Say I create an "encryption algorithm" for images which when it comes down to it does nothing more than invert the image, is anyone selling software which can "break" my encryption now breaking the law?
What if I use nothing more than thousand year old classic like a Caesar cipher to encrypt my media- Is any kid who writes a trivial program to crack such ciphers(specific to my media or not) then breaking the law?
Is thinking about breaking encryption illegal? Is it limited to digital devices or is it illegal to write down a mathamatical formula on paper which can be used to break an encryption scheme?Is it illegal to give the formula to people? How about emailing it to people? How about if the formula is written in a manner than can be parsed by a computer? Or if it's simply example source code for such a program with no executable? that same source code compiled?
"There is no NEED for E-voting. 12-24 hours to handcount paper ballots is sufficient and also enough to have the counting audited/supervised by independent parties."
True as things stand but the easier and cheaper it is to hold a nationwide vote the closer we come to a pure democracy where every important issue can be put to the whole population.
But then it boils down to the fact that hate speech offends you.
So what makes it ok to censor something that offends you but not things which offend someone else keeping in mind that EVERYTHING is offensive to someone.
Make it illegal to say "all black men are evil" and you'll find the same legislation being used to lock up someone for saying "the government is full of evil rich white men"
Let the nut jobs shout, let the crazies spew their bile and if they manage to convince someone to commit a serious crime then those people can be held just as accountable for their actions as they would be if they'd thought it all up in their own crazy little heads.
If you shout "fire" in a crowded theatre and you cause people to be hurt then sure, you should be held accountable but banning you from saying it is something else entirely.
Once you start cutting into free speach then it's only a matter of time before those lovely laws you supported banning offensive speech or insulting groups of people get turned around and used to put you in jail for saying "fuck the government"
Look to the money. During prohibition the 2 groups who wished it would never end were the mob and forgien alcohol producers. I've been told that during that time both these groups quietly invested money in lobbying to keep prohibition.[citation needed]
The war on drugs is just prohibition. From a wiki but unless anyone wants to dispute this then the source doesn't matter too much.
"Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Racketeering happened when powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. The cost of enforcing Prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers. When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption), because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores."
"drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."
Now lets try it for drugs.
"Many social problems could be attributed to the War On Drugs. A profitable, often violent, black market for Drugs is flourishing. Racketeering happens when powerful gangs corrupt law enforcement agencies. Stronger Drugs surg in popularity because their potency make them more profitable to smuggle. The cost of enforcing the War On Drugs is high, and the lack of tax revenues on drugs (Probably billions) affected government coffers. When the war on drugs is abandoned for the fuckup it is, organized crime will lose nearly all of its black market drug profits because of competition with low-priced drug sales at legal drug stores."
"Drug use has generally increased; the crack house has replaced the opium den; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored drug laws; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.(apart from during prohibition)"
I've pirated music, normally simply to see if I like it before buying anything but yes I'd be more inclined to pay if I knew all my money was going to the artists rather than 0.02% of the money I handed over going to the artist. But then I'm not a great example of a hardend pirate. I've donated directly to the programmers of several games I've particularly liked and musicians I've been particularly impressed with.
I loved Discovery channel when I was a kid, watched it all the time. No though I switch it on and all I see most evenings is "Biggest monster trucks ever" or the millionth re run of "crimescene detectives"
If only more parents followed a few of those simple ideas. But you can bet that the first company which comes out with a childcarer bot to allow parents to pay even less attention to their kids will make a fortune.... wiat... TV already got there.
Of course you'll see it going too far in the other direction as well. 17 year olds with a 9 o clock bedtime are hilarious and of course some parents take "dicipline" to a scary place where you wonder if you should be calling child services.
A well worded post.Weird to read the bit about accepting you're brainwashed. I too hope that american marines or soldiers in my own country would refuse to fire on civilians but then I'd prefer this not be put to the test too often.
I do wonder why the groups which push for the right to bear arms don't push harder for the kind of weapons which would really be useful in war rather than useful when bringing down a dear.
Over the years I've gradually moved away from the "guns are bad" view. It's just annoying how stupid people can be with them.
How about a system for guns similar to the system for cars. People should damn well have to prove they know the fucking basic safety rules before being allowed own a gun.
As for keeping a gun around the house- use common sense. If you live alone in a bad neighbourhood above a crack house and below another crack house then sleeping with a loaded gun on a hair trigger is a good idea and that shadowy figure climbing in your window is almost certainly someone trying to rob you. Here it will keep you safe.
If on the other hand you live in a low crime, gated community with a large family then sleeping with a gun is paranoid, failing to keep it in a gun cabbinet is foolish. That shadowy figure climbing in the window is probably your teenager or their girlfiend/boyfriend. A gun here will make very little difference to your safety. If you can't resist shooting at anything suspicious then you're best off not keeping a gun around.
Guns are just a tool.
Question: If you take the view that guns are for dealing with your own government shouldn't it be perfectly legal for people to own fully working military grade weapons? Should you not also have a right to brew your own expolsives or buy materials for bombs?
("I never go anywhere without my weaponised anthrax! For duck hunting...:D")
Slashdot Mirror
bah! "make it their own" and "than you" not "can you "
You seem to have missed the point.
the person who got the copyright isn't the person who wrote happy birthday, happy birthday which was performed for years on radio and in public without any copyright notice before then just happened to be similar to a song written by a dead woman who's family then used the courts to make their own.
so even if you write your own song and don't bother to copyright it then some fucker with more money can you can just come along, take the copyright then sue you if you want to use it.
great isn't it.
in 1893 a school teacher made up a ditty (and most likely copied the tune and lyrical idea from other songs from that time period.)
Good morning to you,
Good morning to you,
Good morning, dear children,
Good morning to all.
She died in 1916.
twenty years after "Good morning to you" was first sung a song with the same melody became popular.
Happy Birthday To You
Happy Birthday To You
Happy Birthday Dear _____
Happy Birthday To You
The sister of the deceased sued and took the copyright because the songs were obviously so similar.
My parents sang that song at my first birthday party (Illegaly I may add as it was probably in a public place like a resteraunt) and the copyright will not expire until after I am dead.
The "artist" never saw a dime.
The "artist" only created something vaguely similar.
A pack of lazy useless family members and lawyers have been living off the income for the last hundred years contributing nothing to society while doing so and being nothing but a pain.
That is the copyright system as it stands.
Work for an hour and you can gain the right to charge other people for making certain sounds in public or making certain marks on paper for the rest of your life, then your kids inherite that right and then sell it to some random company and the best thing is that it will never expire since the terms keep getting longer and longer and longer.
copyright is broken.
It should last no longer than is needed to get your book published and on the shelves or your song recorded and into peoples ipods.
sounds like something written by someone who spends more time reading the shite newspapers which so love to shout about the terrible youth of today with their sex,drugs etc. The fact that most people now days wouldn't even dream of getting married and having kids as young as their parents did doesn't get so much attention.
you jest but the day someone works out a method to do the operation easily and cheaply it will become real. Of course it wouldn't catch on too much because even if it's less destructive than heroin there's no money to be made once the operation has been done.
It could catch on for other purposed though. imagine an implant for people who want to get off really addictive drugs which only activates while their bloodstream is clean and they're in good physical shape (indicators of dehydration or starvation could cause it to switch off to make sure the person takes care of themselves)
Well the spelling seems fine and "local minimums" is a correct term. Explain good sir.
lol, not quite what I meant but it has the general idea. It's quite reasonable to assume that evolution gets stuck in local minimums.
", but tolerably... Everyone has to present an ID to board a flight or to enter a government building, for example"
Everyone?
If George Bush and his family(take your pick of anyone near the top of government) wanted to board a flight but forgot their IDs or their details matched those of people on the "no fly list" what are the chances that the plane would take off without them?
Now try it for any random citizen.
If the answer is different for these 2 situations then there's something rotten.
but you're missing one important point. Say that someone comes up with a treatment for some serious problem with the atp cycle (for an extreme example). Sure it would mean that when civilisation falls a lot of people who need the drugs will die but there's also a chance that you can get a 2 stage mutation which otherwise would never have been possible.
Think in terms of
Change X: you die.
Change Y: you die.
Change X and Y: new extra effecient solution to a problem.You live.
It doesn't really matter if 99% of the population dies after civilisation crumbles due to genetic problems etc since 1% of 6 billion is still loads.
"I can explain anything a computer does."
can you now?
Sure you can look at the lowest level operations but emergent behaviour can be a problem.
An artificial neural network can be used to solve certain problems without the programmer needing to understand the solution the machine develops.
Just because you understand boolean logic doesn't mean you can understand how a learning program plays a game like backgammon better than any human could. You might understand how the program is built but not the solution it creates.
So a suicidal person or self destructive person would fail your test?
Ok so the dissemination of knowledge on certain subjects is illegal unless it's covered under one of the little exceptions. That clears it up nicely, cheers.
wonder how it gets around the first. If the export of "weapons" was legal if printed in a book then I can only imagine how this would go in court.
In the wonderful world of lawyers technical reality don't really matter.
They just get someone to stand up and say they in their opinion that doesn't count.
ok, so disseminating knowledge on a certain subject is illegal due to the DMCA except in a few unusual cases.You cleared it up nicely.
Wonder how this gets around the first. If export of "weapons" was protected as long as it was a book I can only guess how long this will hold up.
It's manufacturing, importing or distributing a device that is intended for circumventing encryption. Probably wouldn't apply to a formula.
And if that formula is machine parseable since that's what code boils down to...
Depends on your motivations. This is different from your stated motivations. If you're clearly lying when you're saying it's for academic study only then it's still not legal.
Where did I say it was for academic study? Does it mention it in the DMCA? Is it one of those screwup pieces of legislation where it's legal if I print the source code for a copy protection cracker in a book (think PGP) and mail it to someone but illegal if I email it to them. Or would both be illegal?
Can anyone tell me: how strong does encryption have to be to make breaking it illegal?
Say I create an "encryption algorithm" for images which when it comes down to it does nothing more than invert the image, is anyone selling software which can "break" my encryption now breaking the law?
What if I use nothing more than thousand year old classic like a Caesar cipher to encrypt my media- Is any kid who writes a trivial program to crack such ciphers(specific to my media or not) then breaking the law?
Is thinking about breaking encryption illegal? Is it limited to digital devices or is it illegal to write down a mathamatical formula on paper which can be used to break an encryption scheme?Is it illegal to give the formula to people? How about emailing it to people? How about if the formula is written in a manner than can be parsed by a computer? Or if it's simply example source code for such a program with no executable? that same source code compiled?
Where's the line?
"There is no NEED for E-voting. 12-24 hours to handcount paper ballots is sufficient and also enough to have the counting audited/supervised by independent parties."
True as things stand but the easier and cheaper it is to hold a nationwide vote the closer we come to a pure democracy where every important issue can be put to the whole population.
But then it boils down to the fact that hate speech offends you.
So what makes it ok to censor something that offends you but not things which offend someone else keeping in mind that EVERYTHING is offensive to someone.
Make it illegal to say "all black men are evil" and you'll find the same legislation being used to lock up someone for saying "the government is full of evil rich white men"
Let the nut jobs shout, let the crazies spew their bile and if they manage to convince someone to commit a serious crime then those people can be held just as accountable for their actions as they would be if they'd thought it all up in their own crazy little heads.
If you shout "fire" in a crowded theatre and you cause people to be hurt then sure, you should be held accountable but banning you from saying it is something else entirely.
Once you start cutting into free speach then it's only a matter of time before those lovely laws you supported banning offensive speech or insulting groups of people get turned around and used to put you in jail for saying "fuck the government"
Look to the money.
During prohibition the 2 groups who wished it would never end were the mob and forgien alcohol producers. I've been told that during that time both these groups quietly invested money in lobbying to keep prohibition.[citation needed]
The war on drugs is just prohibition.
From a wiki but unless anyone wants to dispute this then the source doesn't matter too much.
"Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Racketeering happened when powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. The cost of enforcing Prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers. When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption), because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores."
"drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."
Now lets try it for drugs.
"Many social problems could be attributed to the War On Drugs. A profitable, often violent, black market for Drugs is flourishing. Racketeering happens when powerful gangs corrupt law enforcement agencies. Stronger Drugs surg in popularity because their potency make them more profitable to smuggle. The cost of enforcing the War On Drugs is high, and the lack of tax revenues on drugs (Probably billions) affected government coffers. When the war on drugs is abandoned for the fuckup it is, organized crime will lose nearly all of its black market drug profits because of competition with low-priced drug sales at legal drug stores."
"Drug use has generally increased; the crack house has replaced the opium den; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored drug laws; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.(apart from during prohibition)"
I've pirated music, normally simply to see if I like it before buying anything but yes I'd be more inclined to pay if I knew all my money was going to the artists rather than 0.02% of the money I handed over going to the artist.
But then I'm not a great example of a hardend pirate.
I've donated directly to the programmers of several games I've particularly liked and musicians I've been particularly impressed with.
I loved Discovery channel when I was a kid, watched it all the time.
No though I switch it on and all I see most evenings is "Biggest monster trucks ever" or the millionth re run of "crimescene detectives"
If only more parents followed a few of those simple ideas.
But you can bet that the first company which comes out with a childcarer bot to allow parents to pay even less attention to their kids will make a fortune.... wiat... TV already got there.
Of course you'll see it going too far in the other direction as well. 17 year olds with a 9 o clock bedtime are hilarious and of course some parents take "dicipline" to a scary place where you wonder if you should be calling child services.
A well worded post.Weird to read the bit about accepting you're brainwashed.
I too hope that american marines or soldiers in my own country would refuse to fire on civilians but then I'd prefer this not be put to the test too often.
I do wonder why the groups which push for the right to bear arms don't push harder for the kind of weapons which would really be useful in war rather than useful when bringing down a dear.
On the other hand- Do I have a right to view the details kept on me and to view this audit trail?
Over the years I've gradually moved away from the "guns are bad" view.
It's just annoying how stupid people can be with them.
How about a system for guns similar to the system for cars.
People should damn well have to prove they know the fucking basic safety rules before being allowed own a gun.
As for keeping a gun around the house- use common sense. If you live alone in a bad neighbourhood above a crack house and below another crack house then sleeping with a loaded gun on a hair trigger is a good idea and that shadowy figure climbing in your window is almost certainly someone trying to rob you. Here it will keep you safe.
If on the other hand you live in a low crime, gated community with a large family then sleeping with a gun is paranoid, failing to keep it in a gun cabbinet is foolish. That shadowy figure climbing in the window is probably your teenager or their girlfiend/boyfriend. A gun here will make very little difference to your safety. If you can't resist shooting at anything suspicious then you're best off not keeping a gun around.
Guns are just a tool.
Question:
If you take the view that guns are for dealing with your own government shouldn't it be perfectly legal for people to own fully working military grade weapons? Should you not also have a right to brew your own expolsives or buy materials for bombs?
("I never go anywhere without my weaponised anthrax! For duck hunting... :D")